Global freeze and sunspots

It is winter. Your gonna get snow. One cold winter doesn't negate anything and it is pretty silly and uneducated to imply so.

lol, the same old response... i guess the fact that your idols were caught in their scam counts for nothing...and that we have been experiencing some
serious winters around the world when CO2 is supposed to cause EXTREME HEAT.....

BTW, in the history of the Earth 130 years of data, much of which is questionable because of heat island effect, and other facts such as the fact that
GCMs have been proven to be wrong yet people like you claim this shows CO2 is the cause is "silly and uneducated to imply so".... More so when the
predictions of the AGW have been wrong....

Originally posted by nixie_nox
We have had a solar minimum going on for quite some time. Yet there was record breaking heat all over the planet in 2005.

This is something people like you can't understand... 2005 was an El Nino year...which causes much warming....and the Sun's activity started to
tropd to a crawl at the end of 2005/beginning of 2006, which is the same time that temperatures dropped globally.... then scientists found some other
interesting facts....

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went
down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two
companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

But of course people like you like to ignore such facts... or other facts such as the fact that it was found out that the entire Solar System has
moved into a new region of space that affects the climate of every planet, na dit is probably the reasons for the Sun's activity droppping... But
agian, i am sure you are bored and would rather keep sending money to Al Gore and his minions just to believe "you will save the Earth by giving them
money"....

Originally posted by Magnum007
.................
If there is a correlation between sunspots and climate on Earth, why would it make the warmer parts colder and the colder parts warmer? Quite the
conundrum!

Magnum

It is not only sunspots, and the entire activity of the Sun which includes it's magnetic field, and solar wind, but also whatever happens to the
environment of the Solar System, affects the climate and environment of Earth...

There is research from as early as 1978, that pointed to the fact that the Solar System was going to enter a nearby interstellar cloud "in the near
future", and which could possibly change the climate of Earth.

The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists
reveal how NASA's Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.

"Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system," explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA
Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. "This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing
puzzle of how it can exist at all."

The discovery has implications for the future when the solar system will eventually bump into other, similar clouds in our arm of the Milky Way
galaxy.

Astronomers call the cloud we're running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or "Local Fluff" for short. It's about 30 light years wide and
contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its
surroundings. About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is
completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it.

"The observed temperature and density of the local cloud do not provide enough pressure to resist the 'crushing action' of the hot gas around it,"
says Opher.

So how does the Fluff survive? The Voyagers have found an answer.
....

Originally posted by melatonin
Stuart Clark is a journalist. A science journalist, but a journalist all the same.

Scientists do science. Journalists write/report stuff.

ABE:

Also, I see the OP limited the title from the times article he wrote:

"It was the Sun wot done it. Or was it?"

[edit on 8-1-2010 by melatonin]

He is first and foremost a scientist.

Stuart holds a first class honours degree and a PhD in astrophysics. He is a former editor of Astronomy Now magazine. Currently he spends most of his
time writing books, punctuating this with work for the European Space Agency, New Scientist, BBC Focus and BBC Sky at Night. He is working on a
trilogy of historical fiction based on the key turning points in astronomy. Stuart is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and a former Vice
Chair of the Association of British Science Writers.

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per
decade since the late 1970s. The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study
leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance
He is first and foremost a scientist.

When did he last publish original science?

Having a PhD and doing media work doesn't make one a scientist.

What I saw on his website was a number of popular science books. Moreover, he doesn't even support a denier's position like yourself:

Above all, we must not let any downturn in temperatures be used as an excuse by reluctant nations to wriggle out of pollution controls. Just as
certainly as the solar activity has gone away, so it will return. If we have done nothing in the interim to curb man-made global warming, we will be
in worse trouble than ever.

Reply to post by Nixie_Nox:
"By the way, sunspots block radiation. So if "radiation" actually heated the planet and caused GW, then lack of sunspots would mean that we would
be getting pretty hot, not cold."

The radiation the sunspots help to block is in the form of cosmic rays which is gamma radiation it is not radiation that heats the atmosphere. It is
Exactly the same type of radiation as from an X-ray tube. Cosmic rays are hitting the Earth now at 20-30% higher density than when the Sunspots were
protecting us from them. Cosmic rays interact with water vapor in the atmosphere to form clouds. They also provide energy for lightning. The
increased cloud cover reflects the Sun's heat back into space thus cooling the Earth and the clouds result in increased rainfall. There is already
talk of how bad 2009 harvests were in the U.S. as a result of too much rain and that is only after 2 years of very few Sunspots.

The Sun is still quiet, very few Sunspots and if it continues as it is I am totally convinced we will within the next 2 summers have a summer with no
summer in the Northern Hemisphere, massive crop failures and a global food panic.

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per
decade since the late 1970s. The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study
leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

It is winter. Your gonna get snow. One cold winter doesn't negate anything and it is pretty silly and uneducated to imply so.

Do you understand the difference between taking single regional chilly weather events as evidence against a theory proposing a long-term warming trend
and suggesting the sun has a tad more effect than is commonly proposed?

And, to be honest, any scientist pushing such a position is little more than an idiot.

ABE: But you obviously didn't even read the article written by Stuart Clark before firing off inane tripe at Nixie:

Not as silly as implying that scientists who question your faith are silly and uneducated.

Which Nixie then says they didn't see any scientist writing the article - which is correct as far as I can tell. Then you respond:

Did you actually read the article?
The author actually is a scientist reporting findings by other scientists.

Then you throw a quote including Willson talking about the sun, lol.

So the line of thought goes that because Stuart Clark wrote an article about the potential influence of the sun on climate change with quotes from
Willson and others, Nixie is ad homming him because s/he says people are moronic for extrapolating from single regional weather events to long-term
climate trends. And, moreover, he is questioning the 'faith' of 'alarmists' by writing an article on research on solar influences, even though he
appears to have no issue with AGW.

Jeez. 2+2 = 102564.

Denier?

What am I denying?

Quacks like a duck, dear. The crippled reasoning is pretty indicative, for example.

From Earth's inception the planet has adapted to take what it needs and keep away what it doesn't.

The atmosphere does not adapt, it responds, in line with physics. Adapt implies an adjustment in order to survive. Survival is not an issue with a big
ball of natter, which is what the Earth is. It is not alive in itself. It simply has a climate that supports life.

The atmosphere is a pretty amazing thing.

Yes, it is. So exactly why would anyone think that we have to micro-manage this amazing thing that has worked perfectly since before men stood
upright?

Worst case: the global average temperature will stabilize a few degrees above where it used to be. We will have slightly longer growing seasons and a
bit more temperate climate area to grow food. That food will grow a little faster. We won't have to run heaters quite as much and will save a few
bucks each winter in heating costs.

Wow, talk about a catastrophe! And that is assuming the CO2 scare is accurate (which it is not).

It is winter. Your gonna get snow. One cold winter doesn't negate anything and it is pretty silly and uneducated to imply so.

We have had a solar minimum going on for quite some time. Yet there was record breaking heat all over the planet in 2005.

I wonder if you could post some evidence to show the temperatures were at recorded levels in 2005, I would like to compare them to the ones i have
found, that state that temperatures levelled of around 1998/99 and have shown slow but measurable decline since then, 2000 onwards was predicted by
models used by the IPCC, NASA and met offices around the world to increase to date, when real time monitoring show the opposite. As shown by
satellite and weather station data. Thank you in advance. All in the name of science you understand nothing personal.

the problem with the image show in the link above, is that the chart is the same as one of the ones that I have, but its starts from 1880, and that
was when the earth was coming out of a mini ice age, but what that one doesn't show is the Medieval warm period, as is show in the bottom chart, and
this one was used by the IPCC, until Mr Michael Mann took out the warm period and the mini ice age to show a steady temperature, His chart came to be
known as the hockey stick chart, Naughty naughty Mr Mann

His chart was later removed from the IPCC report (rather abruptly) because it was not correct, and one of the reasons that the Al Gore movie, "An
inconvenient truth" was deemed by a British hight court as being inaccurate in at least 9 issues, one of which was the Hokey stick chart. And was not
allowed to be shown in British Schools unless the inacuracies were first pointed out, I believe they stopped using it all together though because it
was just to much for the teachers to handle,

As you can see the new chart shows the medieval warm period which was much warmer than it has been since the mini ice age, we haven't got to anywhere
near those temperatures and we weren't contributing any CO2 at that time. So the record 2005 temps don't really work. And although temps have been
raising since 1880, the reason is because of coming out of the mini ice age, but like i said sine 1998/99 as shown in both charts they levelled and
have shown decline since then. Its not fair to show only part of a chart or graph and use that as full evidence, as there is much more to it than
that. but then that's what Al Gore, the IPCC and the MSM did i guess. Thanks for the help.

Edit to add, SPPI is a great source of information for all the real science you could need for
this issue.
[edit on 1,8,2010 by neo5842]

the problem with the image show in the link above, is that the chart is the same as one of the ones that I have, but its starts from 1880, and that
was when the earth was coming out of a mini ice age, but what that one doesn't show is the Medieval warm period, as is show in the bottom chart, and
this one was used by the IPCC, until Mr Michael Mann took out the warm period and the mini ice age to show a steady temperature, His chart came to be
known as the hockey stick chart, Naughty naughty Mr Mann

Not really sure of the point, you just asked for evidence of the 2005 claim - it's based on the NASA-GISS observational data.

We're now talking about MWP etc...

Goalposts seem to be creeping about.

His chart was later removed from the IPCC report (rather abruptly) because it was not correct, and one of the reasons that the Al Gore movie,
"An inconvenient truth" was deemed by a British hight court as being inaccurate in at least 9 issues, one of which was the Hokey stick chart. And
was not allowed to be shown in British Schools unless the inacuracies were first pointed out, I believe they stopped using it all together though
because it was just to much for the teachers to handle,

OK, so we're now on the Hockey stick meme - one that has been bouncing around the deniosphere for years and is based on criticising the very first
multiproxy study of paleoclimate from over 10 years ago...

As you can see the new chart shows the medieval warm period which was much warmer than it has been since the mini ice age, we haven't got to
anywhere near those temperatures and we weren't contributing any CO2 at that time. So the record 2005 temps don't really work. And although temps
have been raising since 1880, the reason is because of coming out of the mini ice age, but like i said sine 1998/99 as shown in both charts they
levelled and have shown decline since then. Its not fair to show only part of a chart or graph and use that as full evidence, as there is much more to
it than that. but then that's what Al Gore, the IPCC and the MSM did i guess. Thanks for the help.

Where does that data come from? lol

It's not from the IPCC report and is based on no proxy study I have ever seen in the scientific literature. The actual data the IPCC uses is here:

And is based on a dozen or so published multiproxy studies since the first original study. All show generally the same as the MBH1998 study - recent
temps are probably the warmest for at least 2000 years.

'Coming out of the mini ice age' isn't really a reason for anything. I'm sure it never happened magically. And the criticism of using the
NASA-GISS data is pretty remiss, you wanted to know where the claim for 2005 came from while suggesting temps peaked in 1998/9.

Obviously not according to NASA-GISS. Although HADCRUT shows 1998 as the highest temps in the observational record.

And using 1998/9 as a starting point to assess any trend is just cherrypicking. Temps have been somewhat level for a few years, that's all. Means
little for climate trends. If I cherrypick 1997 or 1999, then NASA-GISS shows clear warming.

ABE: oh jeez, SPPI, lol. Rather not. Since when is 'real' science found on a think-tank website? And a think-tank associated with oil-funded
free-market shills?

I'm somewhat amazed that there is so much debate about this topic on ATS.

It seems to me that many are completely missing one of the most crucial impacts of the CRU leak - that fact that any data or findings published
by the IPCC, NASA, Hadley et al. ARE NOT VALID FODDER FOR THIS DEBATE ANY LONGER.

If there is even the slightest chance that they may have deliberately altered their temperature data for nefarious reasons (and then
mysteriously lost the raw data to boot), then we cannot use those claims or findings in this debate.

I particularly appreciated this sidewalk interview between Monckton and a Greenpeace activist :

Originally posted by treesdancing
I'm somewhat amazed that there is so much debate about this topic on ATS.

It seems to me that many are completely missing one of the most crucial impacts of the CRU leak - that fact that any data or findings published
by the IPCC, NASA, Hadley et al. ARE NOT VALID FODDER FOR THIS DEBATE ANY LONGER.
...........

Well, the thing is Melatonin, among some others is a kook for the AGW scientists... He likes to deny anything, and everything that refutes his AGW
religion, and has TRIED, and FAILED miserably to dismiss the email leaks as well as the tons of research data from all over the world that refutes his
deceased religion.

He has also tried to dismiss, and insult every scientist who refutes the AGW religion... He also calls them all "kooks for certain groups like oil
companies" hence i call him a kook for the AGW scammers...

He is like herpes... he dissapears for a long time until more research shows the dirt, and the scammers that are his idols... then, like herpes, he
sprouts/appears and tries to infest the fragile forum wensite with the same old lies, and the same old rhetoric trying to save his masters....that's
if he is not one of them...

Like him there are a few more, and there are some members that for whatever reason they still want to believe the AGW lies....even after it has been
shown to be the work of scammers, politicians, poicy makers, and environmentalist groups who want to make a buck, and have more power by using Climate
Change, and the environment as a political, and economic tool...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.